Tony Jose1, Amarinder Singh2, Shakti Vardhan3. 1. Professor & Senior Adviser (Obs & Gyn) and Gyn Oncologist, Command Hospital (Eastern Command), Kolkata, India. 2. Classified Specialist (Obs & Gyn) and Gyn Oncologist, Command Hospital (Western Command), India. 3. Commandant, Military Hospital, Devlali, India.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endometrial cancer (EC) is treated by comprehensive surgical staging that includes a systematic lymphadenectomy. The low rates of lymph node metastasis (LNM) in early stages question the benefit of routine lymphadenectomy in low-risk disease, but the absence of a reliable method to identify these patients in whom lymphadenectomy could be omitted makes complete staging the standard of care. This study evaluated a method of preoperative staging in EC to identify patients at low risk of LNM and adjuvant treatment. METHODS: This prospective observational study compared the presurgical staging and risk triage based on endometrial biopsy (EB) and imaging (magnetic resonance imaging [MRI], Positron Emission Tomography [PET] scan) in 94 cases of EC with the final surgicopathological staging and evaluated the role of each modality in presurgical evaluation and triage. RESULTS: Ninety-four cases were triaged into 42 low-risk and 52 non-low-risk cases preoperatively. EB showed a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 51.55%, 89.83%, and 75.53%, respectively, in identifying high-risk grade and histology. MRI was effective for local staging and identified tumor size, myometrial invasion, and cervical involvement with accuracy ranging from 82.20% to 97.78% for these parameters. MRI detected LNM with an accuracy of 85.11%, whereas PET exhibited an accuracy of 86.17%. The combined presurgical staging could identify low-risk disease with a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 85.37%, 86.79%, and 86.17%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Preoperative staging may triage patients into low-risk and non-low-risk cases, thereby facilitating a conscious decision to omit lymphadenectomy in low-risk cases, thus avoiding unnecessary morbidity without compromising oncological safety.
BACKGROUND: Endometrial cancer (EC) is treated by comprehensive surgical staging that includes a systematic lymphadenectomy. The low rates of lymph node metastasis (LNM) in early stages question the benefit of routine lymphadenectomy in low-risk disease, but the absence of a reliable method to identify these patients in whom lymphadenectomy could be omitted makes complete staging the standard of care. This study evaluated a method of preoperative staging in EC to identify patients at low risk of LNM and adjuvant treatment. METHODS: This prospective observational study compared the presurgical staging and risk triage based on endometrial biopsy (EB) and imaging (magnetic resonance imaging [MRI], Positron Emission Tomography [PET] scan) in 94 cases of EC with the final surgicopathological staging and evaluated the role of each modality in presurgical evaluation and triage. RESULTS: Ninety-four cases were triaged into 42 low-risk and 52 non-low-risk cases preoperatively. EB showed a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 51.55%, 89.83%, and 75.53%, respectively, in identifying high-risk grade and histology. MRI was effective for local staging and identified tumor size, myometrial invasion, and cervical involvement with accuracy ranging from 82.20% to 97.78% for these parameters. MRI detected LNM with an accuracy of 85.11%, whereas PET exhibited an accuracy of 86.17%. The combined presurgical staging could identify low-risk disease with a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 85.37%, 86.79%, and 86.17%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Preoperative staging may triage patients into low-risk and non-low-risk cases, thereby facilitating a conscious decision to omit lymphadenectomy in low-risk cases, thus avoiding unnecessary morbidity without compromising oncological safety.
Authors: Robert W Holloway; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Floor J Backes; John F Boggess; Walter H Gotlieb; W Jeffrey Lowery; Emma C Rossi; Edward J Tanner; Rebecca J Wolsky Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2017-05-28 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Andrea Mariani; Sean C Dowdy; William A Cliby; Bobbie S Gostout; Monica B Jones; Timothy O Wilson; Karl C Podratz Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2008-03-04 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Freddie Bray; Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rebecca L Siegel; Lindsey A Torre; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2018-09-12 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Brentley Q Smith; Jonathan D Boone; Eric D Thomas; Taylor B Turner; Gerald McGwin; Amanda M Stisher; Charles A Leath; Lea Novak; Warner K Huh Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 2.787